What’s wrong with Ken Gire's book "Windows of the Soul"? A critique prepared by Mike Brown in 2003 This paper has been prepared to explain why I believe Christians have reason to be concerned about the central teaching of Ken Gire’s book, Windows of the Soul. From the research I have done, I believe it is accurate to characterize Gire’s teaching as unbiblical. In fact, in the particular doctrinal areas of concern, Gire’s ideas bear a resemblance to an early church heresy, Gnosticism, which viewed the spiritual walk as entailing a search for secret knowledge. My primary objection is that, contrary to Ken Gire's thesis, Scripture does not teach the idea that Christians can expect to receive revelations from God outside of Scripture. God can choose to act in any way He wishes, and at times in history, in certain circumstances, He has communicated directly with some individuals. However, such instances are rare. Direct, personal revelation is not God’s ordinary way of interacting with mankind, and Scripture never instructs us to expect such experiences or seek them out. Before I begin, let me disclose that I have never met Ken Gire, and I have not heard reports of his personality, character, beliefs or practice. I have approached this matter with no predisposition for or against him. There is nothing personal about this critique. For the purposes of raising these objections, I have chosen to prepare an analysis of the content of one particular chapter in Windows of the Soul titled "Opening the Window." I assess this chapter to be the theological cornerstone of Gire’s book – the cornerstone upon which the rest of the book is based – so it seemed reasonable to me to address this chapter in detail, at which point, my point would be made. On a procedural note, I have included the actual text of the chapter (in the boxes) to facilitate the reader’s ability to understand my critique in its original context. What you will be reading in the boxes is the entire content of the chapter, in the order in which it appears in the book. (There is only one exception to this, where I have omitted a section due to its lack of pertinence to the discussion, and when you get to that part, you will see that that has been clearly noted.) "Opening the Window" Michelangelo’s painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, the one in which God is reaching His hand to Adam’s, their fingers not quite touching, symbolizes God’s relationship to all humanity for all of human history. Whenever He succeeds in reaching us, a window opens between heaven and earth in a moment of revelation. What we are offered at those moments of revelation is something so much more tantalizing than Turkish Delight. We are offered words from God. Words of guidance and correction. Words of wisdom and understanding. Words of forgiveness and assurance. Words that our soul hungers for. "Man shall not live by bread alone," Jesus said, "but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." If this is true, our very lives depend on those words. They are, in fact, the daily bread of our soul. But what are those words? And where do we find them? [Windows of the Soul, p. 54] Here Ken Gire introduces the reader to what he calls "moments of revelation," moments where God "succeeds in reaching us," where we are offered "words from God." These words are described as offering guidance, correction, wisdom, understanding, forgiveness and assurance. He says our souls hunger for these words. Gire then reminds us of the words Jesus spoke to Satan at His temptation, a citation from Deuteronomy, to drive home the vital importance the "words that proceed from the mouth of God" have to the health of our souls. Finally, he presents his readers with the questions, "What are these words, and where do we find them?" Of course, the obvious answer is Scripture (the Bible), especially since, in context, Jesus is using Old Testament Scripture exclusively in His rebuke of Satan. (Incidentally, one could argue that, by this action, Jesus is really driving home the value of Scripture. Here we have Jesus, the second Person of the Triune God, treating an Old Testament passage as being as authoritative against Satan as words from His own lips.) But let’s read on to see if Scripture is Gire’s answer to the question. Through the prophet Isaiah, God provides a clue: "As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes our from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it." Here Gire says the prophet Isaiah gives us a clue to the answer. In this passage Isaiah quotes God, Who declares that every word that comes from His mouth accomplishes the purpose He intends for it. God uses the illustration of rain and snow and compares the positive effect they have on the creation to the positive effect His word has in accomplishing His purposes. Though a straight-forward message, it's not really one that answers Gire’s question, "What are these words, and where do we find them?" If it answers any question at all, it’s, "What does the word of God do?" (Answer: It always accomplishes the purposes God has for it.) Many have understood this passage as a reference to the Scriptures, thinking if a verse is quoted in conversation, or if a pamphlet of verses is put in a sack lunch for the homeless, or if a Bible is put into the hands of a skeptic, fruit will come of it. Often, though, our experience proves otherwise. The passage, in fact, suggests otherwise. Gire now appears to be preparing to reject what he acknowledges "many have understood," that what God is referring to here is in fact Scripture. I don’t know if Gire’s readers notice what he’s done here, but this is the implied line of reasoning: This passage cannot be referring to Scripture, because, at least in the circumstances Gire has listed, Scripture has proven itself unable to fulfill God’s intentions. [Gire evidently assumes he knows God's intentions in such situations.] Therefore, the reader is set up for the conclusion that this passage must be referring to something else (something that actually does fulfill God’s intentions). 1 Now stop and think about that; re-read those last two sentences. Although I don’t know that Gire actually takes the thought to completion, the implied conclusion is that there is a word from the mouth of God that does a better job of accomplishing His purposes than Scripture. This is troubling. And consider Gire's logic: We know that it appears that Christian material containing Scripture has been distributed without bearing fruit. But is it reasonable from that to conclude that God was not referring to Scripture in this passage from Isaiah? Look deeper into the analogy. It compares the word that goes out of God’s mouth to the rain and snow that go out of the sky. When rain and snow falls to the ground, it trickles into streams, pools into subterranean wells. Dip your hand in a lake, and there is rain channeled from the mountains and snow melted from its peaks. Dig a well, and there also is something of the rain. Peer into the stem of a honeysuckle, and there a nectared tear wept by the rain. Crush a leaf, and out comes a drop of what was once rain. Bite into a peach, and there is something of the winter snow mingled with spring showers in its succulent juices. Even in the desert, where there seems no trace of moisture, you can cut open a saguaro cactus and find something of the rain reservoired inside. Like rain and snow, the word of God permeates the earth. To say God’s word can be found only in certain places, like the Bible, for example, is to say, in effect, that rainwater can be found only in lakes where it is more visible. But everywhere we look there are traces of His word. In history. In the circumstances of our lives. In every nook of humanity and every crannied flower of creation. If God created the world with words that went forth from His mouth, words like "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years," it follows that the sun and moon and stars are echoes of those words and that something of the divine mind and its purposes can be understood in studying them. If we look with the right eyes, listen with the right ears, we will understand the natural creation as a form of sign language through which God expresses Himself. If eons ago God spoke judgment on the world through an inundating sermon of water, then a geological strata form the sedimentary pages where those words are recorded. If the word of God went forth and became flesh and dwelt among us, then every word and every deed of the life of Christ became the vocabulary through which God spoke to the world, and through which He speaks to it still. If the word of God dwells within us, then God speaks to others, however inarticulately, through the language of our life. If God says yes in answer to our prayers, then the circumstances that constitute that answer are echoes of the yes He has spoken. Most often those answers come to us by way of a messenger. That messenger may be an angel or a work of art, a prophet or a person we met for lunch, a Scripture or a song, a vision or a dream, a scene from nature or from a night at the movies. Just as the rain and snow do not cycle back to the atmosphere without first accomplishing their work on earth, so these messengers do not return to God empty-handed without accomplishing the purpose for which they were sent. This section opens with Gire challenging us to now "look deeper" into the analogy, evidently the common interpretation of the Isaiah passage not being "deep" enough. Now let’s look carefully here at what Gire does, because, intentionally or unintentionally, what Gire does here is some slight of hand. But to help prepare you to see what it is that I see, let me first review something: God’s analogy in Isaiah recalled the fact that rain water and snow fall from heaven and do good things before returning back to heaven. The meaning of this analogy is not up for grabs, because God explicitly states its meaning: "As the rain . . . so is my word that goes our from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it." His word goes out and it does good things, things that He intended for it to do. Now watch what happens here, because Gire uses the same illustration, but he assigns to it a new meaning. (Note that in an analogy, a comparison is made between two different things, highlighting a quality that they have in common. In this case, the effectiveness of the rain is compared to the effectiveness of God’s word. But with analogies, it does not logically follow that the same two differing things are necessarily alike in respect to other qualities. For example, even though rain falls seasonally, we can’t conclude from that that God’s word is most available during certain times of the year.) Gire’s new meaning is this: Rain and snow fall from heaven, but portions of them remain in plants, wells and bodies of water on earth. And Gire asserts that "like rain and snow, the word of God permeates the earth." (Examples he gives: the words of Creation, "the words" of Noah's flood, "the Word made flesh" in Christ, the word dwelling inside the Christian.) Therefore, like the rain and the snow that remain, Gire says a lot of God’s word remains lying around the universe just waiting to be discovered. "Everywhere we look we see traces of God’s word. In history. In the circumstances of our lives. In every nook of humanity and every crannied flower of creation." According to Gire, God’s word isn’t only in the Bible, it’s everywhere else, too. It’s God’s "sign language" "through which He expresses Himself." We just need to "look with the right eyes, listen with the right ears." Can you see how this is an abuse of the text, assigning a meaning to it God didn’t intend? The point of the Isaiah passage was, God’s word accomplishes His purposes. Gire’s point was, God’s word can be found everywhere, and we need to focus on learning how to perceive it. In fact, he emphasizes, don’t be mistaken into thinking that God’s word is limited only to the Bible! Can you see the difference? It’s huge. And it’s not benign, either. Going back to Gire's original question, "What are these words?" Gire’s answer is, they’re "echoes" of God’s work. "Where do we find them?" Gire’s answer is, We find them everywhere – we just need to be looking for them. These claims are the presuppositions upon which the whole "Windows of the Soul" book is based. If they are false, then the book – even though, on one level, contains what I think is a lot of good insight and analysis – is arguably a bad influence on its readers. If God’s word is not indeed found all over the place (and realize, nowhere does the Bible teach this), but rather, is actually limited to "the word of God" as it has traditionally been understood (i.e. the Bible), then what Gire is encouraging his readers to do is listen for God in places where God isn’t actually speaking. And for those who don’t see a danger in that, let me ask you this: If people are claiming to actually be receiving messages from places other than Scripture, and God isn’t actually doing the talking, from whom do you suppose those messages are coming? My hope is that many times those messages are merely figments of the imaginations of the "listeners." However, when one has one’s guard down, and is actively seeking messages from the spiritual realm, can the possibility of something more sinister really be ruled out? The Bible says Satan is a deceiver and appears to the deceived as an angel of light, something which is appealing to them. I would submit to you that just because a message seems positive or edifying, or at worst, benign, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s from our Master. Now here is where I skip a page of the chapter. I skip it because it’s not really relevant to this discussion, and Gire’s points don’t rely on it. So let’s skip ahead to the bottom portion of page 56: At times like these, Jesus spoke in plain language. Other times, though, He spoke in parables, which is how I think God most often speaks to us. He speaks to us in parables through nature, uses the language of parable in history and in dreams and in the circumstances of our lives. Now before we go on, let’s just review what a parable is. A parable is a sort of analogy in story form; a means of describing something unknown to a listener by comparing it to something the listener is already familiar with. It is a powerful teaching tool that Jesus employed. However, I’m not sure this is how Gire is using the term. Notice he doesn’t seem to be referring to a teaching tool, but rather, the concept of "hidden messages." Gire here says that he thinks God most often speaks to us through parables – not parables contained in Scripture, but parables found in the events and furniture of our lives. In other words, Scripture is not the means God most often uses to speak to us. Sometimes those circumstances come together in such an extraordinary set of coincidences it catches our attention. What we see in those circumstances are pieces of a puzzle we are invited to put together. The longer we stare at the individual pieces, the more connections we see. Colors match, shapes interlock, and before long a picture emerges. Just like working with a jigsaw puzzle, one moment we see only irregular shapes of green, the next moment we see grass; one moment we see only disconnected shards of blue, the next moment we see sky. Parables are pictures we see from the jigsaw events of our lives, however irregular or disconnected they may first appear. "All happenings, great or small, are parables whereby God speaks," said Malcolm Muggeridge; "the art of life is to get the message." To see all that is offered us at the windows of the soul and to reach out and receive what is offered, this is the art of living. Saying that all of life is a parable from God is a pretty significant claim. Notice that Gire has offered no support for the claim – no reason why the reader should believe it to be true. Bringing Jesus into the discussion is a little deceptive; the fact that Jesus used parables as a teaching tool has no significance to the truthfulness of Gire’s claim. Yes, Jesus did use parables in His earthly ministry. But it does not follow from that that the events and furniture of life are God’s use of "parables" to communicate with mankind. (As mentioned above, the term "hidden messages" is arguably more descriptive of what Gire is actually describing.) Jesus never made a claim to this effect, and I’m unaware that any such claim was ever made elsewhere in Scripture. (If it was, I don’t think Gire offers it to his readers.) … To see all that is offered us at the windows of the soul and to reach out and receive what is offered, this is the art of living. But it is an art, not a science, and so it is not as exact as most of us would prefer. There is room for error. Which makes us uncomfortable. But because it’s not all black and white but more like shadows cast by the substance of things unseen, there is also room for faith. Contrary to Gire’s impression here, the Christian concept of faith is not the act of "filling in the blanks" in messages from God that lack clarity. (Some may point out that Jesus sometimes hid the truth from His opponents by speaking figuratively. But that was a tactic He used against His opponents, not His followers. And I’m not sure the phrase "substance of things unseen," even though it’s a Biblical term, is being used here with its Biblical meaning.) But there is a danger, even for the faithful. The natural tendency is to analyze such moments of grace, and then legalize the principles into codes of conduct as a measure of spirituality. In doing so, we take not only the spontaneity out of our relationship God but also the vitality. God, though, will not allow Himself to be confined like a genie is controlled by the holder of the lamp, summoned at the will of the one who knows just where to rub and how often. It is God who opens the window, not us. All we can do is receive, or not receive, what is offered. Gire says there’s a potential danger here. Is it that people might misunderstand the messages God is sending? Or maybe get a false sense that there’s a message where really there isn’t one? No, for Gire, the danger is to come up with some sort of formula to make this process predictable (…and reliable?). You see, the bottom line is, if this sort of thing were actually taught in Scripture, this would all be fine. The fundamental problem is, it just isn’t. Scripture doesn’t tell us God "opens windows" like this. This isn’t a Christian practice, whether formalized or not (…and whether published by a Christian publishing company or not.). Because the soul belongs to the unseen realm, whenever we speak of it, we have to feel our way in the dark, groping for words as we explore its mysteries by the dim light of our own understanding. Aren’t we supposed to rely on Scripture to gain insight into the "unseen realm"? My impression is that Gire here is attempting to justify, and hoping his readers will grant him the license, to explore doctrines of his own making regarding the "mysterious unseen realm." My own understanding is that of a writer, not a theologian. But if faith is the substance of things unseen, maybe we come closer to spiritual things with our imaginations than our intellects. Is Gire saying here that the use of sound reasoning (i.e. using our intellect) to accurately comprehend God’s revealed word (the Scriptures) is not a proper way of gaining an understanding of the faith? (He clearly is proposing that the use of one’s imagination is a superior way.) I acknowledge that scholars can, in their intensity of focus, sometimes miss the forest from the trees. But that isn’t because the intellect is inherently unable to grasp spiritual things; it’s actually a flaw in their analysis. (Contrary to popular belief, God is not "anti-mind.") The Biblical concept of faith is not, as Gire proposes, that faith is something hidden that one seeks out by exercising his imagination. Biblical faith is specifically the trust the believer puts in God’s provision for his Salvation. Maybe analysis cannot probe as deeply into such things as can art. If so, the artist, the musician, the writer, may have the upper hand, however feeble, when it comes to such things. I’m a musician myself, but I don’t suppose that I can understand spiritual things better by exercising my creativity and imagination than by diligently studying the revealed word of God (the activity the discipline of theology is dedicated to). Now Gire offers a disclaimer: As a writer, I work with words and not numbers, with images and not equations. Because of that, it is likely I won’t get it just right, that the sum of my thinking will be, at best, an approximation. Do you see what he’s saying here? Paraphrased, he’s saying that what he has just said may not make complete sense – but don’t let that bother you. That’s probably just a byproduct of his imaginative/creative side (a.k.a. his spiritual side). What I offer in the following chapters are little more than scratch-paper estimates of how I think a person hears from God. In them are some of the echoes I have heard or thought I heard, and some of the glimpses I have seen or thought I have seen, at some of the windows of the soul I have encountered on my own spiritual journey. Reduced to their lowest common denominator, they are little more than something of my experience with hunger and something of my experience with being fed. As you walk with me through these experiences, I hope most of you read makes sense and that some of it makes a difference in your own experience with God. Let me close this analysis by quoting from a review of "Windows of the Soul" I posted at Amazon.com: I think it's obvious there's nothing wrong with observing our world and the happenings within it and speculating what God's perspective might be. And there's nothing wrong with contemplating a piece of art, literature, music, or film and recognizing in it symbolic correspondence to transcendent truth as revealed in Scripture. And author Ken Gire does this well. If he had left it at that, I probably would be as enthusiastic about this book as the next reader. However, in "Windows of the Soul," Gire goes a step further and teaches that such endeavors are actually communications from God, "moments of revelation." The book is Gire's attempt at giving Christians insight into how to perceive such "revelations." Gire goes as far as to imply that such "revelations" possess an importance equal to that of the Bible, even referring to them as "God's word." Gire implies that Biblical revelation sometimes fails to satisfy our spiritual longings because, through it, "we are fed the experience of others. But they are not OUR experiences. I can read a psalm about David crying out from a cave in the wilderness, and I should read that psalm, but it is not MY psalm. It is not my psalm because it is not my cave, not my wilderness, and not my tears." Thus, Gire feels a need for a new category of revelation. I sense Gire is well intentioned, but I believe, in this respect, he's teaching a form of mysticism, not Christianity. [Webster: "mysticism - the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)"] And while I recognize that the defense of these ideas isn't the primary intent of his book, the theological extrapolations Gire offers are tragically sloppy and at times involve the assignment of new, unorthodox meanings to Biblical accounts and terminology. Some might suggest that Gire's paradigm is just an elaboration on the concept of "general revelation," the Biblically supported idea that the world implicitly communicates certain things about God and His nature. However, the variety of channels described in "Windows," as well as the content of the messages Gire speculates they deliver, far surpass the traditional understanding of the nature and role of general revelation. (And Gire writes as if he's aware that what he's proposing is unconventional.) READER BEWARE : I believe it is accurate to say that Ken Gire is advocating a theology and discipline not taught in Scripture. When it comes time to contemplate the "furniture" of life and apply Biblical teachings to what you observe and experience, "Windows of the Soul" does document some good exploration in that regard. However, when it comes time to hear God speak, don't let anyone convince you God's revealed Word in Scripture is insufficient for the task. Footnotes: 1. I think it is arguably difficult to discern what Gire is actually referring to in the last sentence of the paragraph. I interpret it as a challenge to the idea that the Isaiah passage is making reference to Scripture. However, I anticipate some will claim Gire is referring to the idea that throwing Scripture our haphazardly will produce fruit. The reason I don't agree with that interpretation is that that idea doesn't correspond with the opening statement of the paragraph, specifically, that "many have understood this passage as a reference to the Scriptures." When a phrase like "many have understood" is employed, the implication is that the author has a differing perspective.